Clarkson 'horrified' by racist row

Jeremy Clarkson has said he "wishes to God" that his attempts to cover up a racist word during filming for Top Gear had been better.

The presenter became embroiled in a racism row following claims that he used the n-word while reciting the nursery rhyme Eeny, Meeny, Miny Moe while shooting an episode of the BBC Two programme.

He told The Sun: "I wish to God that my attempts to cover up that word were better than they were.

"I was simply mumbling - saying 'ner ner' or something similar, anything but the n-word. It was my mistake and I apologise for not covering it up. But if you look at the footage you can see what I'm trying to do."

In the footage Clarkson is using the nursery rhyme to compare two sports cars. He said he "mumbled where the offensive word would normally occur" in two takes, and used the word "teacher" in its place in a third.

The segment was later edited out of the BBC broadcast.

He told the newspaper, for which he is columnist, he was unable to think of another way to compare the cars.

"I've racked my brains to think if there is another way to do it without doing eenie, meenie, miny, mo. It was a good hour.

"What we did was entirely innocent. I would invite my readers to tell me of an alternative."

Clarkson also took to Twitter last night to tell fans he is "begging for their forgiveness".

In the video post a solemn-looking Clarkson said: " I was mortified by this, horrified. It is a word I loathe.

"Please be assured I did everything in my power to not use that word. And as I'm sitting here begging your forgiveness for the fact that obviously my efforts weren't quite good enough."

He added: "When I viewed this footage, several weeks later, I realised that if you listen very carefully with the sound turned right up, it did appear I actually used the word I was trying to obscure," he added of one of the first two takes.

He said the item was recorded a "couple of years ago" and he "did everything in my power to make sure that that version did not appear in the programme that was transmitted".

Clarkson added that he sent a note to the production office at the time, asking if there was another take that could be used.

"Jeremy Clarkson has set out the background to this regrettable episode," the BBC said.

"We have made it absolutely clear to him the standards the BBC expects on-air and off.

"We have left him in no doubt about how seriously we view this."

The allegations were reported in the Daily Mirror, which claimed the footage was studied by audio forensic experts who told them the star can be heard mumbling "Catch a n***** by his toe".

Clarkson had earlier tweeted: "I did not use the n-word. Never use it. The Mirror has gone way too far this time."

His co-host, James May, also came to his defence on Twitter, saying: "Jeremy Clarkson is not a racist. He is a monumental bellend and many other things, but not a racist. I wouldn't work with one."

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!mistamina

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Score: -57

PeterM
9:19am Fri 2 May 14

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.
I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.
I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".
And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.
If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.
In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.PeterM

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

Score: 68

bikerjimbo
9:42am Fri 2 May 14

Much ado about nothing. Jeremy will always cause controversy that is why we like him. The PC brigade will no doubt come out and flog him for this but most of us 'normal' people will just get on with our lives. After all he didn't use the n word only recited the rhyme. He has done nothing to be forgiven for but I will forgive him anyway.

Much ado about nothing. Jeremy will always cause controversy that is why we like him. The PC brigade will no doubt come out and flog him for this but most of us 'normal' people will just get on with our lives. After all he didn't use the n word only recited the rhyme. He has done nothing to be forgiven for but I will forgive him anyway.bikerjimbo

Much ado about nothing. Jeremy will always cause controversy that is why we like him. The PC brigade will no doubt come out and flog him for this but most of us 'normal' people will just get on with our lives. After all he didn't use the n word only recited the rhyme. He has done nothing to be forgiven for but I will forgive him anyway.

Score: 41

Say It As It Is OK?
9:50am Fri 2 May 14

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War![/p][/quote]Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!
Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.Say It As It Is OK?

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

Score: 56

Joel'sGrandad
9:56am Fri 2 May 14

James May is right. End of.

James May is right. End of.Joel'sGrandad

James May is right. End of.

Score: 9

fedster
1:14pm Fri 2 May 14

i am with clarkson on this

theres so many words that have recently been clamped down on by the pc police without a thought to what they are doing.

the song real n*gga roll call" by lil' jon and the eastside boyz feat. ice cube

use the N word 97 times. why isnt that banned ???

i am with clarkson on this
theres so many words that have recently been clamped down on by the pc police without a thought to what they are doing.
the song real n*gga roll call" by lil' jon and the eastside boyz feat. ice cube
use the N word 97 times. why isnt that banned ???fedster

i am with clarkson on this

theres so many words that have recently been clamped down on by the pc police without a thought to what they are doing.

the song real n*gga roll call" by lil' jon and the eastside boyz feat. ice cube

use the N word 97 times. why isnt that banned ???

Score: 30

CHADWICK
1:37pm Fri 2 May 14

Golly, what's all the fuss about ??

Golly, what's all the fuss about ??CHADWICK

Golly, what's all the fuss about ??

Score: 38

Nelly99
1:40pm Fri 2 May 14

Madness. This country makes you want to cry. Whatever happened to free speech and why pick on someone who wasn't trying to deliberately cause offence? I don't watch Top Gear but I do read Jeremy Clarkson who I rate as a brilliant ,unique talent. He is funny, witty, clever and irreverent and that is what I like. Say what you think and to hell with the critics. If you have to stop and think about every single thing then all spontaneity goes and you get a language that is mechanical and uninteresting. Bob Hoskins advise was say what you think and worry about it later. Too right. Jeremy...don't change!

Madness. This country makes you want to cry. Whatever happened to free speech and why pick on someone who wasn't trying to deliberately cause offence? I don't watch Top Gear but I do read Jeremy Clarkson who I rate as a brilliant ,unique talent. He is funny, witty, clever and irreverent and that is what I like. Say what you think and to hell with the critics. If you have to stop and think about every single thing then all spontaneity goes and you get a language that is mechanical and uninteresting. Bob Hoskins advise was say what you think and worry about it later. Too right. Jeremy...don't change!Nelly99

Madness. This country makes you want to cry. Whatever happened to free speech and why pick on someone who wasn't trying to deliberately cause offence? I don't watch Top Gear but I do read Jeremy Clarkson who I rate as a brilliant ,unique talent. He is funny, witty, clever and irreverent and that is what I like. Say what you think and to hell with the critics. If you have to stop and think about every single thing then all spontaneity goes and you get a language that is mechanical and uninteresting. Bob Hoskins advise was say what you think and worry about it later. Too right. Jeremy...don't change!

Score: 34

Sigurd Hoeberth
1:46pm Fri 2 May 14

Another pathetic lynching attempt by the left wing BBC and Daily mirror. There is no hysteria and depth their kind will not go to.

Another pathetic lynching attempt by the left wing BBC and Daily mirror. There is no hysteria and depth their kind will not go to.Sigurd Hoeberth

Another pathetic lynching attempt by the left wing BBC and Daily mirror. There is no hysteria and depth their kind will not go to.

Score: 27

killared
2:00pm Fri 2 May 14

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !killared

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Score: -45

PeterM
2:19pm Fri 2 May 14

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.
Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.
No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.PeterM

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Score: 24

kjd161
2:20pm Fri 2 May 14

"Please be assured that I did everything in my power not to use that word" ??? What? He fought a losing battle against his own tongue.? What a pathetic excuse for a man you are. You said the word. It wasn't a mistake, no more than cheating MP's fiddling their expenses is a "mistake". Own up and be a man. And if you have no problem with your obvious racism (Slopes; garlic eating surrender monkeys;etc) then spare us the apologies. You're only sorry you were caught out. This isn't a free speech issue. It's an abuse of free speech issue.

"Please be assured that I did everything in my power not to use that word" ??? What? He fought a losing battle against his own tongue.? What a pathetic excuse for a man you are. You said the word. It wasn't a mistake, no more than cheating MP's fiddling their expenses is a "mistake". Own up and be a man. And if you have no problem with your obvious racism (Slopes; garlic eating surrender monkeys;etc) then spare us the apologies. You're only sorry you were caught out. This isn't a free speech issue. It's an abuse of free speech issue.kjd161

"Please be assured that I did everything in my power not to use that word" ??? What? He fought a losing battle against his own tongue.? What a pathetic excuse for a man you are. You said the word. It wasn't a mistake, no more than cheating MP's fiddling their expenses is a "mistake". Own up and be a man. And if you have no problem with your obvious racism (Slopes; garlic eating surrender monkeys;etc) then spare us the apologies. You're only sorry you were caught out. This isn't a free speech issue. It's an abuse of free speech issue.

Score: -23

killared
2:46pm Fri 2 May 14

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.
Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.
No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.[/p][/quote]Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !killared

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

Score: -24

fedster
4:33pm Fri 2 May 14

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?fedster

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?

Score: 17

fedster
4:34pm Fri 2 May 14

oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear words

oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear wordsfedster

oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear words

Score: 19

killared
4:55pm Fri 2 May 14

fedster wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?

Read again I have never said it is ok for one ethnic group to use the word !

[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?[/p][/quote]Read again I have never said it is ok for one ethnic group to use the word !killared

fedster wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

so your saying its fine for one ethnic group to use a word but not another ?

Read again I have never said it is ok for one ethnic group to use the word !

Score: -12

killared
4:56pm Fri 2 May 14

fedster wrote…

oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear words

The N word is censored big time try to listen to 1XTRA in day time and after 12 at night and you'll spot the difference !

[quote][p][bold]fedster[/bold] wrote:
oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear words[/p][/quote]The N word is censored big time try to listen to 1XTRA in day time and after 12 at night and you'll spot the difference !killared

fedster wrote…

oh and as for the censorship the N word is NOT censored in rap just swear words

The N word is censored big time try to listen to 1XTRA in day time and after 12 at night and you'll spot the difference !

Score: -9

Martin999
4:59pm Fri 2 May 14

Anyone on here who is offended by Jeremy almost saying the n word - please don't watch the Mel Brooks film "Blazing Saddles". The word is repeated clearly and often.

Anyone on here who is offended by Jeremy almost saying the n word - please don't watch the Mel Brooks film "Blazing Saddles". The word is repeated clearly and often.Martin999

Anyone on here who is offended by Jeremy almost saying the n word - please don't watch the Mel Brooks film "Blazing Saddles". The word is repeated clearly and often.

Score: 19

cg1blue
5:14pm Fri 2 May 14

killared wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps. Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis. No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

'put to sleep'? Are you trying to make a point that black guys are tougher than white guys? Sounds a bit r @cist to me.....

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote: Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps. Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis. No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.[/p][/quote]Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward ![/p][/quote]'put to sleep'? Are you trying to make a point that black guys are tougher than white guys? Sounds a bit r @cist to me.....cg1blue

killared wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps. Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis. No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

'put to sleep'? Are you trying to make a point that black guys are tougher than white guys? Sounds a bit r @cist to me.....

Score: 22

Sunny1
5:26pm Fri 2 May 14

Clarkeson and top gear are well past their sell by date. Rather than retire gracefully he causes more controversy. This may just be a step too far. Bye bye and good riddance!

Clarkeson and top gear are well past their sell by date. Rather than retire gracefully he causes more controversy. This may just be a step too far. Bye bye and good riddance!Sunny1

Clarkeson and top gear are well past their sell by date. Rather than retire gracefully he causes more controversy. This may just be a step too far. Bye bye and good riddance!

Score: -25

'locallad87'
5:47pm Fri 2 May 14

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.'locallad87'

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

Score: 27

dango
6:09pm Fri 2 May 14

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.dango

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

Score: 15

dango
6:11pm Fri 2 May 14

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.dango

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

Score: 9

A Very Private Gentleman
6:57pm Fri 2 May 14

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.A Very Private Gentleman

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

Score: -23

ZeeGee, ffs
7:35pm Fri 2 May 14

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.[/p][/quote]An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.
You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.ZeeGee, ffs

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Score: 15

ZeeGee, ffs
7:49pm Fri 2 May 14

The fuss over this non-event (coming so soon after the UAF/Antifa presence in Brighton last Sunday) partly shows what has gone wrong with this country over the past half-century.

The Race Laws of the mid-Sixties were designed to stop white Britons from complaining about or upsetting in any way the non-white immigrants to this country. They weren't designed to prevent white people from being racially-abused or worse.

We have a situation today whereby ANY expression of patriotism by the English (but not the Welsh or Scots, oddly enough) brings out accusations by the uneducated of 'racism'. Why hasn't the UAF etc been in Scotland these past few months decrying the 'Yes' Campaign for being 'racist'?

Jeremy is in the business of making money. He does it quite well. He makes comments that he knows will attract attention, and from that he makes even more money.

As for the 'n' word, he could have that tattooed on his forehead for all I care. It wouldn't make him 'racist' in the slightest, because I couldn't prove (not that I would attempt to) that he had placed it there to racially abuse anyone purely on their race.

The fuss over this non-event (coming so soon after the UAF/Antifa presence in Brighton last Sunday) partly shows what has gone wrong with this country over the past half-century.
The Race Laws of the mid-Sixties were designed to stop white Britons from complaining about or upsetting in any way the non-white immigrants to this country. They weren't designed to prevent white people from being racially-abused or worse.
We have a situation today whereby ANY expression of patriotism by the English (but not the Welsh or Scots, oddly enough) brings out accusations by the uneducated of 'racism'. Why hasn't the UAF etc been in Scotland these past few months decrying the 'Yes' Campaign for being 'racist'?
Jeremy is in the business of making money. He does it quite well. He makes comments that he knows will attract attention, and from that he makes even more money.
As for the 'n' word, he could have that tattooed on his forehead for all I care. It wouldn't make him 'racist' in the slightest, because I couldn't prove (not that I would attempt to) that he had placed it there to racially abuse anyone purely on their race.ZeeGee, ffs

The fuss over this non-event (coming so soon after the UAF/Antifa presence in Brighton last Sunday) partly shows what has gone wrong with this country over the past half-century.

The Race Laws of the mid-Sixties were designed to stop white Britons from complaining about or upsetting in any way the non-white immigrants to this country. They weren't designed to prevent white people from being racially-abused or worse.

We have a situation today whereby ANY expression of patriotism by the English (but not the Welsh or Scots, oddly enough) brings out accusations by the uneducated of 'racism'. Why hasn't the UAF etc been in Scotland these past few months decrying the 'Yes' Campaign for being 'racist'?

Jeremy is in the business of making money. He does it quite well. He makes comments that he knows will attract attention, and from that he makes even more money.

As for the 'n' word, he could have that tattooed on his forehead for all I care. It wouldn't make him 'racist' in the slightest, because I couldn't prove (not that I would attempt to) that he had placed it there to racially abuse anyone purely on their race.

Score: -2

CHISSY1
7:50pm Fri 2 May 14

Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.

Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.CHISSY1

Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.

Score: 18

boltonnut
8:29pm Fri 2 May 14

I'm dreaming of a W**** Holiday season,just like the ones I USED to be able to say.

I'm dreaming of a W**** Holiday season,just like the ones I USED to be able to say.boltonnut

I'm dreaming of a W**** Holiday season,just like the ones I USED to be able to say.

Score: 12

boltonnut
8:34pm Fri 2 May 14

How can Clarkson be A racist,he has teeth the colour of every race on the planet,to use the N word ,they are NASTY.

How can Clarkson be A racist,he has teeth the colour of every race on the planet,to use the N word ,they are NASTY.boltonnut

How can Clarkson be A racist,he has teeth the colour of every race on the planet,to use the N word ,they are NASTY.

Score: 9

albertmodley
9:08pm Fri 2 May 14

I get offended by the BBC effing and blinding in my front room every night and many other foul mouthed individuals round about but I suppose i have to live with it.So should the rest of you whin ging about Clarkson.
Anyone remember the slogan posted allover town years ago
"If you want a **** for a neighbour,Vote Labour"
And I think they got in.Stupid world!

I get offended by the BBC effing and blinding in my front room every night and many other foul mouthed individuals round about but I suppose i have to live with it.So should the rest of you whin ging about Clarkson.
Anyone remember the slogan posted allover town years ago
"If you want a **** for a neighbour,Vote Labour"
And I think they got in.Stupid world!albertmodley

I get offended by the BBC effing and blinding in my front room every night and many other foul mouthed individuals round about but I suppose i have to live with it.So should the rest of you whin ging about Clarkson.
Anyone remember the slogan posted allover town years ago
"If you want a **** for a neighbour,Vote Labour"
And I think they got in.Stupid world!

Score: 16

ConcernedOssy
9:28pm Fri 2 May 14

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

[quote][p][bold]'locallad87'[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.[/p][/quote]And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?ConcernedOssy

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

Score: 15

PaulCa
9:34pm Fri 2 May 14

Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSun

Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSunPaulCa

Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSun

Score: -10

ConcernedOssy
9:40pm Fri 2 May 14

Does this Mean Blackburn & Blackpool are due for a name change then !!
LOL

Does this Mean Blackburn & Blackpool are due for a name change then !!
LOLConcernedOssy

Does this Mean Blackburn & Blackpool are due for a name change then !!
LOL

Score: 15

displayed
9:46pm Fri 2 May 14

He told the newspaper, for which he is columnist, he was unable to think of another way to compare the cars.

"I've racked my brains to think if there is another way to do it without doing eenie, meenie, miny, mo. It was a good hour.

"What we did was entirely innocent. I would invite my readers to tell me of an alternative."

Yeh, keep ur mouth closed as u keep putting ur foot init!

He told the newspaper, for which he is columnist, he was unable to think of another way to compare the cars.
"I've racked my brains to think if there is another way to do it without doing eenie, meenie, miny, mo. It was a good hour.
"What we did was entirely innocent. I would invite my readers to tell me of an alternative."
Yeh, keep ur mouth closed as u keep putting ur foot init!displayed

He told the newspaper, for which he is columnist, he was unable to think of another way to compare the cars.

"I've racked my brains to think if there is another way to do it without doing eenie, meenie, miny, mo. It was a good hour.

"What we did was entirely innocent. I would invite my readers to tell me of an alternative."

Yeh, keep ur mouth closed as u keep putting ur foot init!

Score: -13

'locallad87'
9:48pm Fri 2 May 14

PaulCa wrote…

Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSun

Please tell me what he has actually done wrong, did he actually call someone a N****r or a P***no. He merely said an old nursery rhyme, which, I expect quite a lot of innocent people say when they are choosing two things. I grew up in the 90's I think the politically correct name for people of a different race has changed so many times, if I called you a white B*****d you would have every right to be aggrieved. However when I used to play games in the play ground at school, pretty much everyone would say eenie meenie etc.

[quote][p][bold]PaulCa[/bold] wrote:
Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSun[/p][/quote]Please tell me what he has actually done wrong, did he actually call someone a N****r or a P***no. He merely said an old nursery rhyme, which, I expect quite a lot of innocent people say when they are choosing two things. I grew up in the 90's I think the politically correct name for people of a different race has changed so many times, if I called you a white B*****d you would have every right to be aggrieved. However when I used to play games in the play ground at school, pretty much everyone would say eenie meenie etc.'locallad87'

PaulCa wrote…

Clarkson should be sacked for writing for The Sun. #DontBuyTheSun

Please tell me what he has actually done wrong, did he actually call someone a N****r or a P***no. He merely said an old nursery rhyme, which, I expect quite a lot of innocent people say when they are choosing two things. I grew up in the 90's I think the politically correct name for people of a different race has changed so many times, if I called you a white B*****d you would have every right to be aggrieved. However when I used to play games in the play ground at school, pretty much everyone would say eenie meenie etc.

Score: 17

displayed
10:11pm Fri 2 May 14

Jeremy is no longer flavour of the month and whenever his name is mentioned, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth!

Jeremy is no longer flavour of the month and whenever his name is mentioned, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth!displayed

Jeremy is no longer flavour of the month and whenever his name is mentioned, it leaves a nasty taste in the mouth!

Score: -11

John05
11:47pm Fri 2 May 14

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)

[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War![/p][/quote]Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!
Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.[/p][/quote]Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)John05

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)

Score: 9

John05
11:47pm Fri 2 May 14

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)

[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War![/p][/quote]Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!
Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.[/p][/quote]Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)John05

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

mistamina wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

THE MAJORITY DO NOT SUPPORT YOU.
Only lazy minded, feeble brains like 'say it as it is ok?' people support racism.
I thought we got rid of the likes of you ion the 2nd World War!

Of course you most probably think racism only comes in one colour!

Can't have Black Boards, renamed Chalk boards in! Never seen as racist until people like you read into it as something it clearly wasn't. At the same time suppose you think its perfectly okay to have a White board in Schools, or a Black Police Federation. Black Footballers Association or any other specific ethnic group that precludes White people from joining. So take a look in the mirror because its people like you who promotes everything that is wrong in by having such a distorted views on what racism actually.

Actually, don't take a look in the Mirror... ;)

Score: 7

ThisYear
12:00am Sat 3 May 14

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Hey divvy! read your own posts!

Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..

[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.
Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.
No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.[/p][/quote]Hey divvy! read your own posts!
Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..ThisYear

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Hey divvy! read your own posts!

Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..

Score: 9

John05
12:33am Sat 3 May 14

First of all, Jeremy did not use the N word. He mumbled the two syllable intonation that can be used for any word you wish to insert into the rhyme, so there is no need to discuss whether or not it was acceptable for him to say it.

Top Gear has included many special programs made in countries all over the world showing the local people and cultures and dispelling commonly held misconceptions about them. The last one was the Burmese special. Many western people have the idea that Burma is a scary and dangerous place full of farmers producing illegal drugs. Top Gear showed them to be pleasant, friendly people who were generous and welcoming to strangers and were just going about their lives not harming anyone. It's refreshing for a documentary type show not to be edited to portray decent people as being horrible. There is also the Top Gear world tour and a version of Top Gear licensed to pretty much every country in the world. Top Gear does more for international relations and people's understanding of each other around the world than any politicians ever could.

Some people hate Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson because it's a show about cars and he likes cars. They think a liking of cars makes a person a dangerous maniac who hates the planet. They also hate mickey taking and laddishness because they want everyone to be po-faced and take political correctness to the point where even the people it's supposed to protect cringe. They don't understand the way it's educational but in and entertaining way. They don't understand the random disasters in the features are carefully scripted and managed stunts with actors. They don't understand because they don't want to, they don't want to admit their assumptions about the program are unfounded.

This latest accusation of racism has come about because some production company hanger on has made a quick buck selling a two year old film clip to the Mirror. A Mirror journalist has then used it to try and get a coup out of getting Jeremy Clarkson sacked. The Mirror is all about bullying celebrities and trying to ruin the careers of successful people. It works on the principle a lot of people do, that it's not bullying if you're targeting someone you've seen on the television. Bullying is abhorrent and racism is one part of it. The Mirror is also making light of racism by taking such a serious issue and putting on fake moral outrage over a made up incident to flog a false story for days.

First of all, Jeremy did not use the N word. He mumbled the two syllable intonation that can be used for any word you wish to insert into the rhyme, so there is no need to discuss whether or not it was acceptable for him to say it.
Top Gear has included many special programs made in countries all over the world showing the local people and cultures and dispelling commonly held misconceptions about them. The last one was the Burmese special. Many western people have the idea that Burma is a scary and dangerous place full of farmers producing illegal drugs. Top Gear showed them to be pleasant, friendly people who were generous and welcoming to strangers and were just going about their lives not harming anyone. It's refreshing for a documentary type show not to be edited to portray decent people as being horrible. There is also the Top Gear world tour and a version of Top Gear licensed to pretty much every country in the world. Top Gear does more for international relations and people's understanding of each other around the world than any politicians ever could.
Some people hate Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson because it's a show about cars and he likes cars. They think a liking of cars makes a person a dangerous maniac who hates the planet. They also hate mickey taking and laddishness because they want everyone to be po-faced and take political correctness to the point where even the people it's supposed to protect cringe. They don't understand the way it's educational but in and entertaining way. They don't understand the random disasters in the features are carefully scripted and managed stunts with actors. They don't understand because they don't want to, they don't want to admit their assumptions about the program are unfounded.
This latest accusation of racism has come about because some production company hanger on has made a quick buck selling a two year old film clip to the Mirror. A Mirror journalist has then used it to try and get a coup out of getting Jeremy Clarkson sacked. The Mirror is all about bullying celebrities and trying to ruin the careers of successful people. It works on the principle a lot of people do, that it's not bullying if you're targeting someone you've seen on the television. Bullying is abhorrent and racism is one part of it. The Mirror is also making light of racism by taking such a serious issue and putting on fake moral outrage over a made up incident to flog a false story for days.John05

First of all, Jeremy did not use the N word. He mumbled the two syllable intonation that can be used for any word you wish to insert into the rhyme, so there is no need to discuss whether or not it was acceptable for him to say it.

Top Gear has included many special programs made in countries all over the world showing the local people and cultures and dispelling commonly held misconceptions about them. The last one was the Burmese special. Many western people have the idea that Burma is a scary and dangerous place full of farmers producing illegal drugs. Top Gear showed them to be pleasant, friendly people who were generous and welcoming to strangers and were just going about their lives not harming anyone. It's refreshing for a documentary type show not to be edited to portray decent people as being horrible. There is also the Top Gear world tour and a version of Top Gear licensed to pretty much every country in the world. Top Gear does more for international relations and people's understanding of each other around the world than any politicians ever could.

Some people hate Top Gear and Jeremy Clarkson because it's a show about cars and he likes cars. They think a liking of cars makes a person a dangerous maniac who hates the planet. They also hate mickey taking and laddishness because they want everyone to be po-faced and take political correctness to the point where even the people it's supposed to protect cringe. They don't understand the way it's educational but in and entertaining way. They don't understand the random disasters in the features are carefully scripted and managed stunts with actors. They don't understand because they don't want to, they don't want to admit their assumptions about the program are unfounded.

This latest accusation of racism has come about because some production company hanger on has made a quick buck selling a two year old film clip to the Mirror. A Mirror journalist has then used it to try and get a coup out of getting Jeremy Clarkson sacked. The Mirror is all about bullying celebrities and trying to ruin the careers of successful people. It works on the principle a lot of people do, that it's not bullying if you're targeting someone you've seen on the television. Bullying is abhorrent and racism is one part of it. The Mirror is also making light of racism by taking such a serious issue and putting on fake moral outrage over a made up incident to flog a false story for days.

Score: 19

latsot
7:33am Sat 3 May 14

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.latsot

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Score: -14

bikerjimbo
9:57am Sat 3 May 14

The best thing about the post is that Jeremy comes out of this very well. The negative against him get negative scores while the positives attract positive scores. Apart from the few I think the country is in pretty good shape over this. So we can stop bleating unless you are a black sheep of course!!

The best thing about the post is that Jeremy comes out of this very well. The negative against him get negative scores while the positives attract positive scores. Apart from the few I think the country is in pretty good shape over this. So we can stop bleating unless you are a black sheep of course!!bikerjimbo

The best thing about the post is that Jeremy comes out of this very well. The negative against him get negative scores while the positives attract positive scores. Apart from the few I think the country is in pretty good shape over this. So we can stop bleating unless you are a black sheep of course!!

Score: 6

'locallad87'
10:05am Sat 3 May 14

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

I am not going to try and argue here, however, it will probably come across this way. But has any black or other ethnic majorities claimed to be offended by this video footage? Is it not our own 'british' policies that have made this debacle what it is? As you rightly pointed out; Blackpool, Blackboards etc is quite acceptable to be called such, as it is indeed irrelevant to assume that this is racism. As the footage is clearly about making a choice about which car to choose, is this not just Mr Clarkson using a rhyme, that, we probably all would use from time to time when faced with a decision. Which soup shall I have for my lunch, chicken or vegetable? I feel that this has lost perspecictive, if Mr Clarkson was referring to a star that was to be appearing on the show, or, a pedestrian on a scene being shot in a far flung country then yes I would agree he is being racist, and I would expect the BBC to take sensible action; probably ending his television career. I often wonder, if a white woman was to travel to a Muslim country, or indeed any white british person, they would be expected to abide by their rules and tradition - that is perfectly acceptable. We are a Christian country, the Church of England, with the Queen as the recognised sovereign and governor of the church. Yet we have a very mixed race that resides in this country. I do not see any reason why other ethnic groups shouldn't be allowed to live here, if, after all they are seeking a better life. Yet, there was the lawsuit regarding a woman wearing a cross, a sign of her religion and belief, yet she was not allowed to wear it at work; just incase it offended a colleague who may be of a different religion. Yet, we allow Muslims, to wear their clothing. Is this not just our government acting a little too extreme? In this day and age, surely they should be allowed to live in harmony, both displaying signs of their faith and love for their God? Which brings me back to Clarkson, he used a rhyme which was possibly of English or Cornish tradition, he was not intending to spark a row over rasism. Let's face it, he would not be wanting to ruin his own career. That aside I am sure he isn't a rasist, he would have surely said far worse over the course of his career? I may be viewed as wrong or possibly even contradictory, as this has become quite a long 'rant'. In my humble opinion, I feel that this has just been exhasibated by left wing nonsensical politics?

[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.[/p][/quote]I am not going to try and argue here, however, it will probably come across this way. But has any black or other ethnic majorities claimed to be offended by this video footage? Is it not our own 'british' policies that have made this debacle what it is? As you rightly pointed out; Blackpool, Blackboards etc is quite acceptable to be called such, as it is indeed irrelevant to assume that this is racism. As the footage is clearly about making a choice about which car to choose, is this not just Mr Clarkson using a rhyme, that, we probably all would use from time to time when faced with a decision. Which soup shall I have for my lunch, chicken or vegetable? I feel that this has lost perspecictive, if Mr Clarkson was referring to a star that was to be appearing on the show, or, a pedestrian on a scene being shot in a far flung country then yes I would agree he is being racist, and I would expect the BBC to take sensible action; probably ending his television career. I often wonder, if a white woman was to travel to a Muslim country, or indeed any white british person, they would be expected to abide by their rules and tradition - that is perfectly acceptable. We are a Christian country, the Church of England, with the Queen as the recognised sovereign and governor of the church. Yet we have a very mixed race that resides in this country. I do not see any reason why other ethnic groups shouldn't be allowed to live here, if, after all they are seeking a better life. Yet, there was the lawsuit regarding a woman wearing a cross, a sign of her religion and belief, yet she was not allowed to wear it at work; just incase it offended a colleague who may be of a different religion. Yet, we allow Muslims, to wear their clothing. Is this not just our government acting a little too extreme? In this day and age, surely they should be allowed to live in harmony, both displaying signs of their faith and love for their God? Which brings me back to Clarkson, he used a rhyme which was possibly of English or Cornish tradition, he was not intending to spark a row over rasism. Let's face it, he would not be wanting to ruin his own career. That aside I am sure he isn't a rasist, he would have surely said far worse over the course of his career? I may be viewed as wrong or possibly even contradictory, as this has become quite a long 'rant'. In my humble opinion, I feel that this has just been exhasibated by left wing nonsensical politics?'locallad87'

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

I am not going to try and argue here, however, it will probably come across this way. But has any black or other ethnic majorities claimed to be offended by this video footage? Is it not our own 'british' policies that have made this debacle what it is? As you rightly pointed out; Blackpool, Blackboards etc is quite acceptable to be called such, as it is indeed irrelevant to assume that this is racism. As the footage is clearly about making a choice about which car to choose, is this not just Mr Clarkson using a rhyme, that, we probably all would use from time to time when faced with a decision. Which soup shall I have for my lunch, chicken or vegetable? I feel that this has lost perspecictive, if Mr Clarkson was referring to a star that was to be appearing on the show, or, a pedestrian on a scene being shot in a far flung country then yes I would agree he is being racist, and I would expect the BBC to take sensible action; probably ending his television career. I often wonder, if a white woman was to travel to a Muslim country, or indeed any white british person, they would be expected to abide by their rules and tradition - that is perfectly acceptable. We are a Christian country, the Church of England, with the Queen as the recognised sovereign and governor of the church. Yet we have a very mixed race that resides in this country. I do not see any reason why other ethnic groups shouldn't be allowed to live here, if, after all they are seeking a better life. Yet, there was the lawsuit regarding a woman wearing a cross, a sign of her religion and belief, yet she was not allowed to wear it at work; just incase it offended a colleague who may be of a different religion. Yet, we allow Muslims, to wear their clothing. Is this not just our government acting a little too extreme? In this day and age, surely they should be allowed to live in harmony, both displaying signs of their faith and love for their God? Which brings me back to Clarkson, he used a rhyme which was possibly of English or Cornish tradition, he was not intending to spark a row over rasism. Let's face it, he would not be wanting to ruin his own career. That aside I am sure he isn't a rasist, he would have surely said far worse over the course of his career? I may be viewed as wrong or possibly even contradictory, as this has become quite a long 'rant'. In my humble opinion, I feel that this has just been exhasibated by left wing nonsensical politics?

Score: 13

PeterM
10:07am Sat 3 May 14

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Picking up on one small bit in what you say and that is my main gripe, WHY is it acceptable for members of a particular group to use a word, such as n****r or p***y , yet when someone from outside that group uses it they are branded as racist?

Either no one can use it or everyone can. You can't have it both ways. It's either offensive or it isn't.

[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.[/p][/quote]Picking up on one small bit in what you say and that is my main gripe, WHY is it acceptable for members of a particular group to use a word, such as n****r or p***y , yet when someone from outside that group uses it they are branded as racist?
Either no one can use it or everyone can. You can't have it both ways. It's either offensive or it isn't.PeterM

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Picking up on one small bit in what you say and that is my main gripe, WHY is it acceptable for members of a particular group to use a word, such as n****r or p***y , yet when someone from outside that group uses it they are branded as racist?

Either no one can use it or everyone can. You can't have it both ways. It's either offensive or it isn't.

Score: 10

mistamina
10:16am Sat 3 May 14

ThisYear wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Hey divvy! read your own posts!

Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..

Not madness, just lazy thinking.
One of the wittiest programs is have i got news for you. Do you get this kind of offensive language on that program?
Welcome to 2014.

[quote][p][bold]ThisYear[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.
Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.
No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.[/p][/quote]Hey divvy! read your own posts!
Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..[/p][/quote]Not madness, just lazy thinking.
One of the wittiest programs is have i got news for you. Do you get this kind of offensive language on that program?
Welcome to 2014.mistamina

ThisYear wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Hey divvy! read your own posts!

Black people using the word is at this time acceptable within society..

Not madness, just lazy thinking.
One of the wittiest programs is have i got news for you. Do you get this kind of offensive language on that program?
Welcome to 2014.

Score: -4

mistamina
10:21am Sat 3 May 14

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

Dango, welcome to 2014.

[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.[/p][/quote]Dango, welcome to 2014.mistamina

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

Dango, welcome to 2014.

Score: -8

mistamina
10:30am Sat 3 May 14

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.[/p][/quote]Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!
Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.mistamina

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

Score: -10

mistamina
10:37am Sat 3 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.[/p][/quote]An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.
You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.[/p][/quote]Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.mistamina

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

Score: -6

mistamina
10:41am Sat 3 May 14

CHISSY1 wrote…

Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.

In the 1950s.

[quote][p][bold]CHISSY1[/bold] wrote:
Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.[/p][/quote]In the 1950s.mistamina

CHISSY1 wrote…

Jeremy Clarkson should be Prime Minister.

In the 1950s.

Score: -6

ZeeGee, ffs
11:54am Sat 3 May 14

mistamina wrote…

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

All those words, and NOT ONCE did you attempt to explain why Jeremy was being 'racist' by using that word, the one which he didn't use anyway

The fact is that no-one can.

He wasn't using it to describe a particular person. He certainly wasn't discriminatory in his use of it.

Fine, object to hearing or seeing the word used, but unless it is being used in a racist manner, it isn't racist.

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.[/p][/quote]Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!
Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.[/p][/quote]All those words, and NOT ONCE did you attempt to explain why Jeremy was being 'racist' by using that word, the one which he didn't use anyway
The fact is that no-one can.
He wasn't using it to describe a particular person. He certainly wasn't discriminatory in his use of it.
Fine, object to hearing or seeing the word used, but unless it is being used in a racist manner, it isn't racist.ZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

All those words, and NOT ONCE did you attempt to explain why Jeremy was being 'racist' by using that word, the one which he didn't use anyway

The fact is that no-one can.

He wasn't using it to describe a particular person. He certainly wasn't discriminatory in his use of it.

Fine, object to hearing or seeing the word used, but unless it is being used in a racist manner, it isn't racist.

Score: 9

ZeeGee, ffs
12:06pm Sat 3 May 14

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.[/p][/quote]An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.
You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.[/p][/quote]Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.[/p][/quote]If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.
It isn't, so it does.
HTHZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

Score: 5

ZeeGee, ffs
12:13pm Sat 3 May 14

mistamina wrote…

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

You make it sound as if being a racist is somehow a bad thing, especially when you're using it to insult people.

Racism is as natural to humans as breathing. As long as there are two people on the planet, there will be differences between them with the potential to cause division should they choose. Being of a different race or gender is easy to spot, height and age less so.

You seem unaware that people are free to dislike anything they choose and for whatever reason they choose, and it's only a matter of time before there are laws against discrimination with regard to something pathetic like height.

And racism isn't restricted to one race, despite what many people seem to think.

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.
Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.
Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?
Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.
If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.[/p][/quote]Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!
Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.[/p][/quote]You make it sound as if being a racist is somehow a bad thing, especially when you're using it to insult people.
Racism is as natural to humans as breathing. As long as there are two people on the planet, there will be differences between them with the potential to cause division should they choose. Being of a different race or gender is easy to spot, height and age less so.
You seem unaware that people are free to dislike anything they choose and for whatever reason they choose, and it's only a matter of time before there are laws against discrimination with regard to something pathetic like height.
And racism isn't restricted to one race, despite what many people seem to think.ZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

latsot wrote…

The defences of Clarkson, including his own, ring hollow.

Let's start with his own defence. He says he couldn't think of another way to compare the cars. Fair enough that he found nothing to chose between the cars and needed to use an arbitrary method. But he could have been filmed saying "eeny meeny miney mo" and ended the shot there. Everyone knows that the implication of that first line of the rhyme is arbitrary choice. That he chose instead to go through with the whole rhyme when it was clearly unnecessary suggests very strongly that he was being deliberately provocative. Second, he claims to have mumbled something like "ner ner" rather than using the n word. Why? When I grew up in the 70s we innocently used the rhyme including the n word until we were told by teachers and parents that we shouldn't and why. Several alternatives to the word were suggested. Clarkson is obviously aware of such alternatives because the eventually broadcast footage was overdubbed with "teacher". Why didn't he just use one of those alternatives instead of deliberately mumbling the n word? I can only think of one reason.

Now to other people's defences. When members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority adopt derogatory terms that have been assigned to them by members of a majority, they are expressing solidarity and community identity. That can be dangerous and can in some cases itself lead to racism, but it doesn't grant a license to people who are not members of that minority to use those terms in the expectation that they won't be found offensive. It's much better when the derogatory term is subverted by a community to become a positive term. The subversion of the originally insulting term 'gay' is a good example. It has become a term that is only an insult if used by a bigot *as* an insult and everyone can instantly see when it's being used that way. Not all derogatory terms have been or necessarily can be subverted in that way, presumably due to the particular history that surrounds the term. In those cases, it is not acceptable to use the word without having particular shared experience or family history of shared experience. So sure, it's acceptable for members of an oppressed or traditionally oppressed minority to use some terms to refer to each other and not acceptable for others to do so. But let's consider what we mean by 'acceptable'. Acceptable to whom? To the people it matters to. If a whole bunch of people find a term originally intended as derogatory and dehumanising to be offensive, then why would you even want to use the word? Don't bemoan not being able to use it without being called a bigot, just accept that it's not a nice word to use and don't use it. Why would you want to?

Finally, for those people claiming it's unacceptable to use terms like 'blackboard' or that words like 'Blackpool' should be changed, you really need to grow up. It's perfectly acceptable to refer to black things as black. Some - but by no means all - dark-skinned people object to being called black because the term automatically associates them with a particular ethic group, which may not apply, and the history of the members of that group being considered of lower value than white people. It's a term, therefore, which should be applied to people with some care and sensitivity. Again, why would anyone *want* to indiscriminately use a word if lots of people find it offensive? Pretending that there are any serious objections to terms like "blackboard" is a sign of a complete lack of such sensitivity.

If you refuse to think about why people are offended by certain terms then I'm sorry to break it to you, but you're a bigot.

Hi Gentleman,
My mum is of ethnic origins too.
i know what i would get if i used the n word in front of her - in any context!

Rest of you, listen to A Very Private Gentleman: S*D off!
You a really are coming across as sad out-of-time closest r word.

You make it sound as if being a racist is somehow a bad thing, especially when you're using it to insult people.

Racism is as natural to humans as breathing. As long as there are two people on the planet, there will be differences between them with the potential to cause division should they choose. Being of a different race or gender is easy to spot, height and age less so.

You seem unaware that people are free to dislike anything they choose and for whatever reason they choose, and it's only a matter of time before there are laws against discrimination with regard to something pathetic like height.

And racism isn't restricted to one race, despite what many people seem to think.

Score: 6

cosmicma
12:26pm Sat 3 May 14

has anybody bothered to ask the ethnic people if the N word used in the way clarkson used it ( or implied use of it ) actually ARE offended by the use of it ??

i think you will find that most will take it for what it was and not a racist slur that was never broadcasted anyway

i'm sure much worse has been edited out of many a program before going on air we will never hear about

has anybody bothered to ask the ethnic people if the N word used in the way clarkson used it ( or implied use of it ) actually ARE offended by the use of it ??
i think you will find that most will take it for what it was and not a racist slur that was never broadcasted anyway
i'm sure much worse has been edited out of many a program before going on air we will never hear aboutcosmicma

has anybody bothered to ask the ethnic people if the N word used in the way clarkson used it ( or implied use of it ) actually ARE offended by the use of it ??

i think you will find that most will take it for what it was and not a racist slur that was never broadcasted anyway

i'm sure much worse has been edited out of many a program before going on air we will never hear about

Score: 6

'locallad87'
12:29pm Sat 3 May 14

I am 6ft 7. I work in the public sector, therefore I encounter lots of people from different walks of life, however, the first thing they say is 'what's the weather like up there' or, 'are you standing on a box'. I don't get upset, I just smile and politely decline from discussing my height, yawn, it's boring. I would never dream of saying to a dwarf, 'what's it like down there' or, 'are you on your knees'. I watched idiot abroad last week, it stars Warwick Davis, Karl Pilkington turned to him and said, 'do you have knees' he also referred to walking with him as 'pulling along a Henry vacum that keeps getting caught, therefore having to go back for it'. But, I haven't heard of any complaints towards his comments.

I am 6ft 7. I work in the public sector, therefore I encounter lots of people from different walks of life, however, the first thing they say is 'what's the weather like up there' or, 'are you standing on a box'. I don't get upset, I just smile and politely decline from discussing my height, yawn, it's boring. I would never dream of saying to a dwarf, 'what's it like down there' or, 'are you on your knees'. I watched idiot abroad last week, it stars Warwick Davis, Karl Pilkington turned to him and said, 'do you have knees' he also referred to walking with him as 'pulling along a Henry vacum that keeps getting caught, therefore having to go back for it'. But, I haven't heard of any complaints towards his comments.'locallad87'

I am 6ft 7. I work in the public sector, therefore I encounter lots of people from different walks of life, however, the first thing they say is 'what's the weather like up there' or, 'are you standing on a box'. I don't get upset, I just smile and politely decline from discussing my height, yawn, it's boring. I would never dream of saying to a dwarf, 'what's it like down there' or, 'are you on your knees'. I watched idiot abroad last week, it stars Warwick Davis, Karl Pilkington turned to him and said, 'do you have knees' he also referred to walking with him as 'pulling along a Henry vacum that keeps getting caught, therefore having to go back for it'. But, I haven't heard of any complaints towards his comments.

Score: 7

eeoodares
1:06pm Sat 3 May 14

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit!

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit!eeoodares

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit!

Score: 6

eeoodares
1:10pm Sat 3 May 14

killared wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

Killared, are you suggesting that black people have no humour and can only resolve disputes with grotesque violence and they will 'put you to sleep'?

YOU sound like a bigot and a racist.

[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.
Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.
No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.[/p][/quote]Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward ![/p][/quote]Killared, are you suggesting that black people have no humour and can only resolve disputes with grotesque violence and they will 'put you to sleep'?
YOU sound like a bigot and a racist.eeoodares

killared wrote…

PeterM wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

Why is it acceptable for rap songs to include the word in the lyrics, but the general public cannot use them? As for them being bleeped out, try listening to any pirate radio station in London and you can hear these songs played out with no bleeps.

Walk down any street in inner city London, as I do from time to time, and you can hear this word being frequently used by black and mixed race youths to describe another black person. Sit on the top deck of a bus carrying school children on their way home and again the conversations include this word on a regular basis.

No I don't use this word, it's never been part of my vocabulary, but I did used to use the C word to describe a black person, but have stopped doing so now, as I appreciate that it can be offensive. I never used it in a derogatory way, just to describe someone that was black, but realise that this is no longer acceptable.

Because you know the consequences that come with that word you get put to sleep by a black guy or you go to court and maybe prison time mate ! Still what was allowed back then might not be acceptable now perfect example is the scandal with the LA Clippers in America at the moment with their crazy owner ! But some idiots on here think it's ok to use those word but won't use it in front of a black guy because they know the repercussion and because they are coward !

Killared, are you suggesting that black people have no humour and can only resolve disputes with grotesque violence and they will 'put you to sleep'?

YOU sound like a bigot and a racist.

Score: -1

mistamina
1:12pm Sat 3 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.[/p][/quote]An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.
You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.[/p][/quote]Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.[/p][/quote]If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.
It isn't, so it does.
HTH[/p][/quote]Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............mistamina

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............

Score: 2

Chronos
1:15pm Sat 3 May 14

I guess Clarkson picked the wrong week to employ Max Clifford to keep this out of the papers :-)

I guess Clarkson picked the wrong week to employ Max Clifford to keep this out of the papers :-)Chronos

I guess Clarkson picked the wrong week to employ Max Clifford to keep this out of the papers :-)

Score: 6

ZeeGee, ffs
1:23pm Sat 3 May 14

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............

Try what, exactly?

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]A Very Private Gentleman[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Say It As It Is OK?[/bold] wrote:
The majority support you![/p][/quote]Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.[/p][/quote]An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.
You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.[/p][/quote]Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.[/p][/quote]If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.
It isn't, so it does.
HTH[/p][/quote]Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............[/p][/quote]Try what, exactly?ZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

A Very Private Gentleman wrote…

Say It As It Is OK? wrote…

The majority support you!

Jeremy has 16 Million reasons why he is not bothered about what he says on TV and the media.
We have 240,000 reasons why we don't like your posts and your opinions SIAII OK.
I do wish you would S*D off!
The majority cannot support Jeremy, because the majority is ethnic minority like my mother.

An ethnic minority cannot possibly be a 'majority'.

You seem to be unaware that a member of an ethnic minority can support Clarkson.

Yes, i am sure members of ethnic minority can support Clarkson.
But no one can support him, UKIP members or any other, if they deliberately use racism to further their selfish aims: and lurching our modern fairly balanced society onto the dangerous are 1950s.
If they succeed we, the common folk, will pay dearly with social unrest, wanton destruction, riots, etc.

If society were 'balanced', racism wouldn't exist.

It isn't, so it does.

HTH

Zee Gee, should we not try?
Some of us in the gutter are looking up you know.............

Try what, exactly?

Score: 4

albertmodley
1:38pm Sat 3 May 14

ConcernedOssy wrote…

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.!

[quote][p][bold]ConcernedOssy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]'locallad87'[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.[/p][/quote]And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?[/p][/quote]No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.!albertmodley

ConcernedOssy wrote…

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.!

Score: 3

Chronos
1:43pm Sat 3 May 14

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.Chronos

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

Score: 3

ZeeGee, ffs
2:21pm Sat 3 May 14

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

Isn't it funny how the terms you mentioned as being acceptable are not a reference to skin colour?

After all, calling a Frenchman a 'frog' under the terms of our crazy laws IS a racially-motivated offence, because it's being derogatory about his nationality. That's because 'racism' no longer applies to mere 'race'. It just shows how crazy the use of the term 'racist' has become.

No, what upsets people are terms that are used to describe non-whites, as if white people are the only people who can be racist. Let's face it, the racist Doreen Lawrence was rewarded with a peerage.

[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]Isn't it funny how the terms you mentioned as being acceptable are not a reference to skin colour?
After all, calling a Frenchman a 'frog' under the terms of our crazy laws IS a racially-motivated offence, because it's being derogatory about his nationality. That's because 'racism' no longer applies to mere 'race'. It just shows how crazy the use of the term 'racist' has become.
No, what upsets people are terms that are used to describe non-whites, as if white people are the only people who can be racist. Let's face it, the racist Doreen Lawrence was rewarded with a peerage.ZeeGee, ffs

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

Isn't it funny how the terms you mentioned as being acceptable are not a reference to skin colour?

After all, calling a Frenchman a 'frog' under the terms of our crazy laws IS a racially-motivated offence, because it's being derogatory about his nationality. That's because 'racism' no longer applies to mere 'race'. It just shows how crazy the use of the term 'racist' has become.

No, what upsets people are terms that are used to describe non-whites, as if white people are the only people who can be racist. Let's face it, the racist Doreen Lawrence was rewarded with a peerage.

Score: 2

latsot
3:35pm Sat 3 May 14

it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:

"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."

You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.

If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.

The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.

This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.

As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.

it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:
"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."
You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.
If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.
The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.
This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.
As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.latsot

it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:

"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."

You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.

If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.

The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.

This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.

As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.

Score: -1

albertmodley
5:02pm Sat 3 May 14

albertmodley wrote…

ConcernedOssy wrote…

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.!

But the sisterhood with Harperson in control would be up in arms on both counts if you called a pub "The Brown Cow".Both Racist and anti feminist of course.

[quote][p][bold]albertmodley[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ConcernedOssy[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]'locallad87'[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.[/p][/quote]And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?[/p][/quote]No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.![/p][/quote]But the sisterhood with Harperson in control would be up in arms on both counts if you called a pub "The Brown Cow".Both Racist and anti feminist of course.albertmodley

albertmodley wrote…

ConcernedOssy wrote…

'locallad87' wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

It was a harmless nursery rhyme to choose between two cars. I suppose you would find Ba Ba BLACK sheep offensive too? Get off your soap box and use some perception.

And not forgetting all the BLACK BULL Pubs should we call them DARK BULL OR WHAT ?

No need.The thought police have approved it as for every black bull pub there is a white bull probably down the road.So the racial equality mob are quite happy that no racial prejudice is involved.!

But the sisterhood with Harperson in control would be up in arms on both counts if you called a pub "The Brown Cow".Both Racist and anti feminist of course.

Score: 1

Jonn
5:09pm Sat 3 May 14

All this does is re enforce the fact that Clarkson is a tw@t in general, and associates with other like minded arrogant tw@ts such as David Cameron.

All this does is re enforce the fact that Clarkson is a tw@t in general, and associates with other like minded arrogant tw@ts such as David Cameron.Jonn

All this does is re enforce the fact that Clarkson is a tw@t in general, and associates with other like minded arrogant tw@ts such as David Cameron.

Score: -1

ZeeGee, ffs
6:18pm Sat 3 May 14

latsot wrote…

it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:

"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."

You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.

If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.

The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.

This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.

As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.

"This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of. "

He hasn't said anything racist, so he cannot be guilty of it.

"Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. "

You cannot say that. You cannot be offended on behalf of someone else, for a start. It is quite possible for a Frenchman to be offended at being called 'Frog" and for him not to give a d*mn hearing an African racially abused.

"The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured,months after the cartoons were published. "

Really? The first responses by muslims occurred days after their publication.

[quote][p][bold]latsot[/bold] wrote:
it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:
"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."
You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.
If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.
The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.
This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.
As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.[/p][/quote]"This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of. "
He hasn't said anything racist, so he cannot be guilty of it.
"Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. "
You cannot say that. You cannot be offended on behalf of someone else, for a start. It is quite possible for a Frenchman to be offended at being called 'Frog" and for him not to give a d*mn hearing an African racially abused.
"The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured,months after the cartoons were published. "
Really? The first responses by muslims occurred days after their publication.ZeeGee, ffs

latsot wrote…

it's good to see that several people commenting have pretty much proven my point. But a couple of responses:

"For example, I view calling the French people Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s"."

You couldn't possibly have chosen worse examples. Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. The reason should be obvious. The French have never been an oppressed minority. They have never been, as a race, enslaved, had their countries, land, friends, family and way of life taken away from them. If anything, their record of doing this to other people is even worse than the deplorable British record. The word 'frog' was never imposed on the French by a majority that was oppressing them. It's a racist term, but a relatively benign one. Or rather, the specific usage matters more in this case than the specific usage of the n word. If a Brit repeatedly screamed "FROG" at an isolated French person, it would certainly be a serious racist assault. But if a Brit casually called French people "bloody frogs" then it would be racist but probably harmful only in that it perpetuates further racism.

If the British had in the past enslaved the French and used 'frog' as a dehumanising term. then 'frog' would automatically be a more offensive term. It would be worse than just racist or jingoistic.

The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured, months after the cartoons were published. Some of the cartoons complained about were not even published in the paper but later by people wanting to stir hatred. The cartoons (original and additions) referred to religious ideas. In this case, religious ideas that are supposedly immune to criticism. We need to be able to criticise ideas, including and especially religious ones.

This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of.

As I said earlier, perhaps it's best to understand *why* some terms are more offensive than others. That really is the first step and it doesn't require anything harder than googling.

"This is *not* the same thing as casual racism of the sort Clarkson is guilty of. "

He hasn't said anything racist, so he cannot be guilty of it.

"Calling French people frogs is certainly racist, but it isn't nearly so offensive as - say - using that n word to refer to people of afro-caribbean descent. "

You cannot say that. You cannot be offended on behalf of someone else, for a start. It is quite possible for a Frenchman to be offended at being called 'Frog" and for him not to give a d*mn hearing an African racially abused.

"The 'Danish' cartoon controversy was deliberately manufactured,months after the cartoons were published. "

Really? The first responses by muslims occurred days after their publication.

Score: 2

Undercover Euro Yob
10:51pm Sat 3 May 14

PeterM wrote…

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.
I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.
I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".
And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.
If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.
In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.[/p][/quote]I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.
If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).
If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?Undercover Euro Yob

PeterM wrote…

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

Score: 2

Undercover Euro Yob
11:26pm Sat 3 May 14

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.
[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]
Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.
[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]
Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?
If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.
Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.Undercover Euro Yob

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

Score: 0

Undercover Euro Yob
11:39pm Sat 3 May 14

I'm not sure what Clarkson was up to - the BBC would not apologise without reason, and it was quite a serious-sounding apology.

Why did he not just refuse to sing the word and ask for an alternative version? He doesn't seem the sort of bloke who would agonise and not speak out - the hour-long brain-racking session sounds unconvincing - someone would have asked him why he appeared to be racking his brain and the problem would have become known.

Maybe he just forgot to conceal his prejudice but then he was singing from a script.

Difficult to guess [italic]what [/italic] the truth is here.

I'm not sure what Clarkson was up to - the BBC would not apologise without reason, and it was quite a serious-sounding apology.
Why did he not just refuse to sing the word and ask for an alternative version? He doesn't seem the sort of bloke who would agonise and not speak out - the hour-long brain-racking session sounds unconvincing - someone would have asked him why he appeared to be racking his brain and the problem would have become known.
Maybe he just forgot to conceal his prejudice but then he was singing from a script.
Difficult to guess [italic]what [/italic] the truth is here.Undercover Euro Yob

I'm not sure what Clarkson was up to - the BBC would not apologise without reason, and it was quite a serious-sounding apology.

Why did he not just refuse to sing the word and ask for an alternative version? He doesn't seem the sort of bloke who would agonise and not speak out - the hour-long brain-racking session sounds unconvincing - someone would have asked him why he appeared to be racking his brain and the problem would have become known.

Maybe he just forgot to conceal his prejudice but then he was singing from a script.

Difficult to guess [italic]what [/italic] the truth is here.

Score: 1

Chronos
12:40am Sun 4 May 14

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?

My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.

What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.

I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.

Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.

[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.
[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]
Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.
[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]
Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?
If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.
Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.[/p][/quote]So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?
My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.
What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.
I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.
Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?
Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.Chronos

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?

My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.

What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.

I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.

Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.

Score: 2

PeterM
12:53am Sun 4 May 14

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

PeterM wrote…

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.

My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.
I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.
I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".
And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.
If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.
In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.[/p][/quote]I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.
If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).
If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?[/p][/quote]I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.
My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.PeterM

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

PeterM wrote…

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.

My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

Score: 3

mistamina
10:55am Sun 4 May 14

eeoodares wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit!

This debate is to test what is racism. it is not a petty spelling test.

[quote][p][bold]eeoodares[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]killared[/bold] wrote:
Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man ![/p][/quote]If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit![/p][/quote]This debate is to test what is racism. it is not a petty spelling test.mistamina

eeoodares wrote…

killared wrote…

Idiots on here who try to protect Clarkson for being an idiot again are so funny ! Why don't you try to call a black guy N.... just to see the reaction or reception. It's not the 1930's now behind close doors that might be acceptable but on TV or in Public it's not !. People said rap song blah blah blah those song are allowed but every profanity are censored idiots !. I can't believe people on here think it's ok to use the N.. word or think it is a joke ! In front of a black person any of you on here won't dare using the word instead would coward FACT so please don't try to justify Clarkson act and think it is ok to use the N word beside the guy has history controversy. The guy is old enough and made a serious mistake he should deal with it like a man !

If you are to lecture anybody of their use of the English language, please try using it your self. innit!

This debate is to test what is racism. it is not a petty spelling test.

Score: 1

Undercover Euro Yob
10:46pm Sun 4 May 14

Chronos wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?

My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.

What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.

I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.

Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.

[italic] So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion? [/italic]

Up to a point - yes - if you are making a worthwhile criticism then you must cause offence if necessary but gratuitous rudeness is another matter - if it is an honest criticism then your audience will or should accept your good will.
[italic] My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.
[/italic]

That didn’t need demonstrating - we know that different people take offence to a different degree over an identical insult - what is the significance of that - and in that case why did you say in your earlier post: [italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]?

[italic] What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it. [/italic]

You seem to be belittling the offence caused by racially insulting language by saying ‘the ferocity of the reaction’ - as if the degree of ferocity can be turned up or down and if it can be sufficiently amplified this guarantees a serious reaction - has it occurred to you that sometimes people react ferociously because they are fiercely offended. If someone’s offence is clearly not genuine - if they are ‘putting it on’ or exaggerating it people can usually tell and may well say so - if it [italic]is [/italic]a trivial matter that is generating excessive outrage then people will think so and comment to that effect again.

[italic] I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender. [/italic]

That is not a point really worth making - it is not insightful or helpful or - really - a point - if you say the right things to the French or the Germans then they will give you a smack in the mouth. I stand by my not very naïve idea that if you know something will cause offence then you don’t say it light heartedly.

[italic] Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws? [/italic]

Not only is it ‘political correctness’ it is the ‘absolute’ version - scary stuff. There have always been some limits on free speech and the ‘concept’ of it is not being destroyed as some people get hot under the collar because they hear things they find offensive. There has always been ‘political correctness’ - it’s usually called tact or good manners - this is most commonly practised by us blokes with women. I never use certain words in front of women although we all know of the existence of these words and (for example) I don’t willingly make reference to weight issues in front of fat women. I don’t feel this cramps my style - you can use words like ‘vagina’ if you are having a conversation of an obstetrical nature rather than the word beginning with ‘c’ that the Wyf of Bath uses. A former colleague was a Muslim and he tried to convert me to Islam while I tried (with justifiably little expectation of success) to convert him to Darwinism. I used to point out what happened to Malala Yousafzai and my misgivings over sexually-segregated societies. We both used to deny each other’s most profoundly-held beliefs but did so in a respectful fashion and we are still friends.

[italic] Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it. [/italic]
The country was in danger of invasion when my father was a young man - ‘political correctness’ even if it were not an invention of right-wing intellectuals would be trivial stuff.

[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.
[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]
Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.
[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]
Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?
If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.
Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.[/p][/quote]So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?
My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.
What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.
I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.
Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?
Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.[/p][/quote][italic] So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion? [/italic]
Up to a point - yes - if you are making a worthwhile criticism then you must cause offence if necessary but gratuitous rudeness is another matter - if it is an honest criticism then your audience will or should accept your good will.
[italic] My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.
[/italic]
That didn’t need demonstrating - we know that different people take offence to a different degree over an identical insult - what is the significance of that - and in that case why did you say in your earlier post: [italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]?
[italic] What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it. [/italic]
You seem to be belittling the offence caused by racially insulting language by saying ‘the ferocity of the reaction’ - as if the degree of ferocity can be turned up or down and if it can be sufficiently amplified this guarantees a serious reaction - has it occurred to you that sometimes people react ferociously because they are fiercely offended. If someone’s offence is clearly not genuine - if they are ‘putting it on’ or exaggerating it people can usually tell and may well say so - if it [italic]is [/italic]a trivial matter that is generating excessive outrage then people will think so and comment to that effect again.
[italic] I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender. [/italic]
That is not a point really worth making - it is not insightful or helpful or - really - a point - if you say the right things to the French or the Germans then they will give you a smack in the mouth. I stand by my not very naïve idea that if you know something will cause offence then you don’t say it light heartedly.
[italic] Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws? [/italic]
Not only is it ‘political correctness’ it is the ‘absolute’ version - scary stuff. There have always been some limits on free speech and the ‘concept’ of it is not being destroyed as some people get hot under the collar because they hear things they find offensive. There has always been ‘political correctness’ - it’s usually called tact or good manners - this is most commonly practised by us blokes with women. I never use certain words in front of women although we all know of the existence of these words and (for example) I don’t willingly make reference to weight issues in front of fat women. I don’t feel this cramps my style - you can use words like ‘vagina’ if you are having a conversation of an obstetrical nature rather than the word beginning with ‘c’ that the Wyf of Bath uses. A former colleague was a Muslim and he tried to convert me to Islam while I tried (with justifiably little expectation of success) to convert him to Darwinism. I used to point out what happened to Malala Yousafzai and my misgivings over sexually-segregated societies. We both used to deny each other’s most profoundly-held beliefs but did so in a respectful fashion and we are still friends.
[italic] Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it. [/italic]
The country was in danger of invasion when my father was a young man - ‘political correctness’ even if it were not an invention of right-wing intellectuals would be trivial stuff.Undercover Euro Yob

Chronos wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion?

My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.

What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it.

I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender.

Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws?

Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it.

[italic] So what you're saying is that as long as "most people in (a) group" deem something offensive, then that's it - end of discussion? [/italic]

Up to a point - yes - if you are making a worthwhile criticism then you must cause offence if necessary but gratuitous rudeness is another matter - if it is an honest criticism then your audience will or should accept your good will.
[italic] My point, as well you know (and actually you may have proved me right with your response), was to demonstrate that identical "offense" is not universally met with the same response by different 'victims'.
[/italic]

That didn’t need demonstrating - we know that different people take offence to a different degree over an identical insult - what is the significance of that - and in that case why did you say in your earlier post: [italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]?

[italic] What in fact now seems to determine the degree or seriousness of a perceived insult is less down to the offense itself, but far more to do with the ferocity of the reaction to it. [/italic]

You seem to be belittling the offence caused by racially insulting language by saying ‘the ferocity of the reaction’ - as if the degree of ferocity can be turned up or down and if it can be sufficiently amplified this guarantees a serious reaction - has it occurred to you that sometimes people react ferociously because they are fiercely offended. If someone’s offence is clearly not genuine - if they are ‘putting it on’ or exaggerating it people can usually tell and may well say so - if it [italic]is [/italic]a trivial matter that is generating excessive outrage then people will think so and comment to that effect again.

[italic] I stand by my (admittedly naïve) examples to prove my point - racially insulting the French or Germans, or religiously offending Christians or Jews will not be taken as seriously as comments or actions that denigrate countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, or the religion of Islam. Not because of the offense itself, but because of the reaction it will undoubtedly engender. [/italic]

That is not a point really worth making - it is not insightful or helpful or - really - a point - if you say the right things to the French or the Germans then they will give you a smack in the mouth. I stand by my not very naïve idea that if you know something will cause offence then you don’t say it light heartedly.

[italic] Am I wrong to believe that the current insidious creep towards absolute political correctness in this country is not only eroding the very concept of free speech, but is also gradually leading to the reintroduction of blasphemy laws? [/italic]

Not only is it ‘political correctness’ it is the ‘absolute’ version - scary stuff. There have always been some limits on free speech and the ‘concept’ of it is not being destroyed as some people get hot under the collar because they hear things they find offensive. There has always been ‘political correctness’ - it’s usually called tact or good manners - this is most commonly practised by us blokes with women. I never use certain words in front of women although we all know of the existence of these words and (for example) I don’t willingly make reference to weight issues in front of fat women. I don’t feel this cramps my style - you can use words like ‘vagina’ if you are having a conversation of an obstetrical nature rather than the word beginning with ‘c’ that the Wyf of Bath uses. A former colleague was a Muslim and he tried to convert me to Islam while I tried (with justifiably little expectation of success) to convert him to Darwinism. I used to point out what happened to Malala Yousafzai and my misgivings over sexually-segregated societies. We both used to deny each other’s most profoundly-held beliefs but did so in a respectful fashion and we are still friends.

[italic] Maybe I am being too naïve, but it seems pretty obvious to me that this is where this country is heading, and there's absolutely bugger all we can do about it. [/italic]
The country was in danger of invasion when my father was a young man - ‘political correctness’ even if it were not an invention of right-wing intellectuals would be trivial stuff.

BTW - according to the OED 'naïve' means:
1. Originally: natural and unaffected; artless; innocent. Later also: showing a lack of experience, judgement, or wisdom; credulous, gullible.
Are you sure you are being naïve?Undercover Euro Yob

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.

My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

I think people use words about themselves that would be considered offensive if another person used them, for the reasons described above.

Having said that I think you have a good point - if it is fighting talk for me to call a black man a nig ger then why is he using the word front of me? (No black person has yet done so in front of me I might add.)

[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]PeterM[/bold] wrote:
Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.
I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.
I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".
And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.
If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.
In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.[/p][/quote]I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.
If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).
If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?[/p][/quote]I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.
My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.[/p][/quote]I think people use words about themselves that would be considered offensive if another person used them, for the reasons described above.
Having said that I think you have a good point - if it is fighting talk for me to call a black man a nig ger then why is he using the word front of me? (No black person has yet done so in front of me I might add.)Undercover Euro Yob

PeterM wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

PeterM wrote…

Listen to a lot of rap songs, sung by young black males and what word do you hear? Yes the 'n' word.

I've watched Big Fat Gypsy Wedding and I've heard the travelling community openly use the 'p' word when describing themselves.

I've also been to London and seen the Pride march go past and have seen lesbians on bicycles with T-Shirts emblazened with "D*** on a Bike".

And the 'Y' word for Jewish people. I know several Jews and none of them are offended by that word, and often use it themselves.

If these communities use these words themselves, how can they then be offended when others also use them.

In my opinion, it's not the words themselves but the manner in which they are used. Use it in an offensive and derogatory way and that is wrong.

I think they are using amongst themselves language they object to when used by others; sometimes 'in a consciously ironic fashion' to show 'there - we know you call us that'; sometimes to 'reclaim' the offensive word and; sometimes to make the point that although it is okay for them to say it, it is unacceptable for non-members of their community to do so. (That seems to apply particularly to the 'the N word' in the US.) Black people, particularly women object to the terminology employed by rappers, like '****' and 'hoe. 'David Baddiel has spoken against 'the Y word' (I think he calls it that for a laugh) which he says doesn't need to be 'reclaimed' by Tottenham supporters ('the Yid Yobs') or anyone else. I don't know any Jews any longer but I hope I would have enough sense not to call someone a Yid - it has been an offensive name throughout my life and I think since the days of Oswald Mosley.

If somebody finds a name offensive then don't call them that name without some good reason. (If a black man tells you a lie then you can call him a liar but not a nig ger).

If you feel you have a genuine point here then why not call some of the un-fightably huge young black men in HW 'nig ger' and see what happens?

I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary.

My main moan/gripe is if a word is deemed offensive then no one should use it. Why can the community/group that finds a word offensive and complain when it's used by non members, then use it themselves, surely that's double standards. Don't do as I do, do as I say.

I think people use words about themselves that would be considered offensive if another person used them, for the reasons described above.

Having said that I think you have a good point - if it is fighting talk for me to call a black man a nig ger then why is he using the word front of me? (No black person has yet done so in front of me I might add.)

Score: 0

ZeeGee, ffs
12:06am Mon 5 May 14

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.

"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?

" the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?

[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.
[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]
Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.
[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]
Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?
If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.
Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.[/p][/quote]I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.
I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.
"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."
It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?
" the BBC would not apologise without reason"
Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?ZeeGee, ffs

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.

"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?

" the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?

Score: 2

Undercover Euro Yob
12:40am Mon 5 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.

"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?

" the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?

[italic] I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight. [/italic]

Thanks for that - I shall bear it in mind next time I want to upset black men or women, scum or liberals.

[italic] "I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people? [/italic]

You could say they were extremely vulgar.

[italic] " the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term? [/italic] …
Do you mean the term ‘nig ger’ or the term ‘apologise’?

The BBC said: [italic] "Jeremy Clarkson has set out the background to this regrettable episode …We have made it absolutely clear to him the standards the BBC expects on-air and off. We have left him in no doubt about how seriously we view this."
[/italic]
The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means [italic] To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. [/italic]

I think whatever you call it the BBC was clearly acknowledging and expressing regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected, that is to say apologising, for the offence Clarkson may have caused.

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chronos[/bold] wrote:
What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.
In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.
For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".
Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?
Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.
I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.
So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...
... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.[/p][/quote]This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.
[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]
Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.
[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]
Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?
If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.
Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.[/p][/quote]I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.
I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.
"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."
It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?
" the BBC would not apologise without reason"
Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?[/p][/quote][italic] I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.
I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight. [/italic]
Thanks for that - I shall bear it in mind next time I want to upset black men or women, scum or liberals.
[italic] "I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."
It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people? [/italic]
You could say they were extremely vulgar.
[italic] " the BBC would not apologise without reason"
Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term? [/italic] …
Do you mean the term ‘nig ger’ or the term ‘apologise’?
The BBC said: [italic] "Jeremy Clarkson has set out the background to this regrettable episode …We have made it absolutely clear to him the standards the BBC expects on-air and off. We have left him in no doubt about how seriously we view this."
[/italic]
The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means [italic] To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. [/italic]
I think whatever you call it the BBC was clearly acknowledging and expressing regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected, that is to say apologising, for the offence Clarkson may have caused.Undercover Euro Yob

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

Chronos wrote…

What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur.

In other words, perfectly analogous insults may be perceived by one group as being grossly offensive, but not by another. The seriousness of the offense is therefore set and maintained by the perceived 'victim'.

For example, I view calling the French people "Fr*gs", or Germans "Kr*ts" as absolutely identical to calling black people n*****s, or muslims "P***s".

Yet if utilised in public, I'm guessing that two of those terms would barely raise an eyebrow while the other two might find you being accused of appalling racisms. What's the difference? Or more poignantly, what's the difference in law?

Or let's go back to the infamous Danish cartoons. Imagine that in the same issue of Jyllands-Posten, and given equal prominence, they had published similar 'derogatory' illustrations portraying Jesus or Moses. Exactly the same "perceived" offense, but the reactions would have been vastly different.

I've heard local radio presenters (on air) laughing and joking about the French and using a mocking "hoh-hee-hoh" Gallic accent to emphasise their point; yet can you imagine the reaction if they'd been talking about a West Indian and done so in a Song of the South' affection? Or a mocking Pakistani accent when discussing that country? Again, the 'crimes' are identical, but we all know the reactions to all three would run along vastly different lines.

So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board...

... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.

This is a [italic] deeply [/italic]silly post.

[italic] What irks me most is that there is no recognised 'standard' for the seriousness or offensiveness of a racial/religious slur. [/italic]

Yeah - that is really irksome - no recognised standard what we need is a 'recognised standard' of offensiveness.

[italic] So let's all agree what is offensive and to whom, and apply restrictions across the board... ... otherwise, and I hope you'd all agree, that is 'real' racism.
[/italic]

Why is that ‘’real’ racism’?

If a word is applied to a whole group of people and most people in that group find it offensive then it is offensive - we don’t need a great discussion on it.

Do you think white racists call blacks ‘nig gers’ because they don’t realise it may cause offence.

I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight.

"I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people?

" the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term?

[italic] I suspect that white people call blacks 'n*gger' because they know it upsets both them and the bleeding-heart whites.

I use the term to describe scum, but if liberals are upset to hear it, then it's a double delight. [/italic]

Thanks for that - I shall bear it in mind next time I want to upset black men or women, scum or liberals.

[italic] "I would not call anyone a n****r, it's not part of my vocabulary."

It's part of mine. What other term should I use when I want to upset black people? [/italic]

You could say they were extremely vulgar.

[italic] " the BBC would not apologise without reason"

Why would the BBC apologise? Did it use the term? [/italic] …
Do you mean the term ‘nig ger’ or the term ‘apologise’?

The BBC said: [italic] "Jeremy Clarkson has set out the background to this regrettable episode …We have made it absolutely clear to him the standards the BBC expects on-air and off. We have left him in no doubt about how seriously we view this."
[/italic]
The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means [italic] To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. [/italic]

I think whatever you call it the BBC was clearly acknowledging and expressing regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected, that is to say apologising, for the offence Clarkson may have caused.

Score: 0

Undercover Euro Yob
12:43am Mon 5 May 14

(When I said ''liberals'' in that last post I meant 'the bleeding-heart whites.' )

(When I said ''liberals'' in that last post I meant 'the bleeding-heart whites.' )Undercover Euro Yob

(When I said ''liberals'' in that last post I meant 'the bleeding-heart whites.' )

Score: 2

Undercover Euro Yob
12:45am Mon 5 May 14

Now I must go to bed with a nice cup of cocoa.

Now I must go to bed with a nice cup of cocoa.Undercover Euro Yob

Now I must go to bed with a nice cup of cocoa.

Score: 0

ZeeGee, ffs
3:42pm Mon 5 May 14

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.ZeeGee, ffs

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

Score: -1

Undercover Euro Yob
11:21pm Mon 5 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)Undercover Euro Yob

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

Score: 1

Undercover Euro Yob
11:26pm Mon 5 May 14

Anyway that's enough explanation for one day one again.

Cocoa time now.

Anyway that's enough explanation for one day one again.
Cocoa time now.Undercover Euro Yob

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.ZeeGee, ffs

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Score: 1

mistamina
9:19am Tue 6 May 14

dango wrote…

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see!

[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.[/p][/quote]Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see!mistamina

dango wrote…

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see!

Score: 0

mistamina
9:26am Tue 6 May 14

Yob,
i picked up your joke about Clarkson being 'the white livered liberal'.

So I too will retire with my coco, and leave these nice cossetted folks to their contorted self-denial.

Yob,
i picked up your joke about Clarkson being 'the white livered liberal'.
So I too will retire with my coco, and leave these nice cossetted folks to their contorted self-denial.mistamina

Yob,
i picked up your joke about Clarkson being 'the white livered liberal'.

So I too will retire with my coco, and leave these nice cossetted folks to their contorted self-denial.

Score: 0

ZeeGee, ffs
11:43am Tue 6 May 14

mistamina wrote…

dango wrote…

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see!

What is there to see?

How long do we have to wait for Tarantino to apologise for using the word in one of his movies, and to whom will he be apologising?

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]dango[/bold] wrote:
Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.[/p][/quote]it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.[/p][/quote]Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see![/p][/quote]What is there to see?
How long do we have to wait for Tarantino to apologise for using the word in one of his movies, and to whom will he be apologising?ZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

dango wrote…

dango wrote…

Eeny meeny miny moe
catch a **** by the toe,
if he squeals let him go,
eeny meeny miny mo.
I remember us as kids saying the rhyme to play hide and seek and never saw a problem with it and as far as I can remember, we didn't know what a **** was back then as kids.
It's a kids innocent rhyme, nothing more.

it seems the Echo censor words used legitimately.

Soooooooooooooooo 1940s! Unbelievable, but then to be fair to you, we do have a sage saying. none so blind that will not see!

What is there to see?

How long do we have to wait for Tarantino to apologise for using the word in one of his movies, and to whom will he be apologising?

Score: 0

Undercover Euro Yob
1:26pm Tue 6 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.[/p][/quote]Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.
But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.Undercover Euro Yob

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

Score: 0

ZeeGee, ffs
2:30pm Tue 6 May 14

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.[/p][/quote]Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.
But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.[/p][/quote]A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..
He didn't, so we didn't.
The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.ZeeGee, ffs

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

Score: 0

Undercover Euro Yob
10:29pm Tue 6 May 14

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.

It's in common usage amongst the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.
It's in common usage amongst the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.Undercover Euro Yob

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.

It's in common usage amongst the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.

Score: 1

Undercover Euro Yob
10:30pm Tue 6 May 14

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.

It's still in common usage I would think among the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children, in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.
It's still in common usage I would think among the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children, in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.Undercover Euro Yob

I wonder what the BBC warned him about then and why he made what looks suspiciously like a deliberately funny 'apology'.

It's still in common usage I would think among the sort of people who you don't have conversations with in front of the children, in case the children repeat the words they hear at school.

Score: 1

mistamina
9:43am Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.[/p][/quote]Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.
But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.[/p][/quote]A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..
He didn't, so we didn't.
The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.mistamina

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

Score: -1

ZeeGee, ffs
12:17pm Wed 7 May 14

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.

Just to clarify:

Clarkson didn't use that word

He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so

It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.

A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.

HTH

[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.[/p][/quote]Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.
But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.[/p][/quote]A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..
He didn't, so we didn't.
The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.[/p][/quote]Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.
Just to clarify:
Clarkson didn't use that word
He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so
It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.
A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.
HTHZeeGee, ffs

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.

Just to clarify:

Clarkson didn't use that word

He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so

It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.

A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.

HTH

Score: 1

Undercover Euro Yob
8:09pm Wed 7 May 14

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.

Just to clarify:

Clarkson didn't use that word

He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so

It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.

A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.

HTH

Hey you know - I think I am becoming[italic][bold] convinced [/bold][/italic] - yeah ... you know I think ... 'ZeeGee, ffs' might just be right after all you know.

Thanks 'ZeeGee, ffs' and - once again thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]mistamina[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Undercover Euro Yob[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]ZeeGee, ffs[/bold] wrote:
"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "
So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.[/p][/quote]The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)[/p][/quote]"Might"
He didn't even use the word.[/p][/quote]Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.
But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.[/p][/quote]A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..
He didn't, so we didn't.
The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.[/p][/quote]ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.[/p][/quote]Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.
Just to clarify:
Clarkson didn't use that word
He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so
It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.
A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.
HTH[/p][/quote]Hey you know - I think I am becoming[italic][bold] convinced [/bold][/italic] - yeah ... you know I think ... 'ZeeGee, ffs' might just be right after all you know.
Thanks 'ZeeGee, ffs' and - once again thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.Undercover Euro Yob

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

mistamina wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

Undercover Euro Yob wrote…

ZeeGee, ffs wrote…

"The OED says ‘apologize’ (with a ‘z’) means To acknowledge and express regret for a fault without defence, by way of reparation to the feelings of the person affected. "

So which person should Clarkson apologise to? After all, *that* is the only person concerned, and if no individual person was involved, he has nothing to apologise for.

The BBC was apologising on his behalf to all the people from ethnic minorities who might have been offended by Clarkson's use of the word. (Clarkson himself the white livered liberal has said he tried to avoid using it.)

"Might"

He didn't even use the word.

Hell - you are the only person to understand the facts then. A lot of people seem to think he did use the word and are up in arms about it - maybe they should consider what you say and they would become more detached and rational.

But thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

A lot of incredibly stupid people are upset about something that didn't happen. If he had used the word, then we would all have heard it..

He didn't, so we didn't.

The fact that the word is still in common usage seems to have escaped some people.

ZeeGee,
Give up, you have lost this one.
We know you are debating for the sake of it, but back to your studies now I think.

Anyone who wishes to correct any of my comments is free to do so IF they have the intelligence.

Just to clarify:

Clarkson didn't use that word

He didn't aim it at anyone, so no-one can possibly be offended by him doing so

It is a word in common usage used to describe a particular type of black person, even by black people themselves.

A lot of silly people get offended on behalf of others.

HTH

Hey you know - I think I am becoming[italic][bold] convinced [/bold][/italic] - yeah ... you know I think ... 'ZeeGee, ffs' might just be right after all you know.

Thanks 'ZeeGee, ffs' and - once again thanks for the helpful advice on how to pee off the blacks and liberals.

Ipsoregulated

This website and associated newspapers adhere to the Independent Press Standards Organisation's Editors' Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about the editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then please contact the editor here. If you are dissatisfied with the response provided you can contact IPSO here